Table 2. Between subject effects of the MANOVA followed by the Tukey HSD post-hoc test.
| Between subject effects (experimental vs. coach-prescribed) |
| Time |
Effect |
Wilk’s Ʌ |
F |
Hypothesis df |
Error df |
p |
| Post-competition |
Ranking |
0.88 |
2.48 |
4 |
46 |
0.91 |
| Recovery protocol |
0.75 |
3.91 |
4 |
46 |
0.12 |
| Ranking * recovery protocol |
0.81 |
2.71 |
4 |
46 |
0.66 |
| Post-recovery |
Ranking |
0.85 |
3.01 |
4 |
46 |
0.72 |
| Recovery protocol † |
0.66 |
13.36 |
4 |
46 |
0.03 |
| Ranking * recovery protocol |
0.69 |
8.11 |
4 |
46 |
0.09 |
| Multiple comparisons |
|
|
M ± SD |
|
|
95% CI |
| Time |
Variables |
Experimental |
Coach-prescribed |
SE |
p |
Lower |
Upper |
| Post-recovery |
BL † |
2.40 ± 1.18 |
4.29 ± 2.07 |
0.48 |
0.02 |
0.96 |
2.82 |
| HR |
104.16 ± 16.25 |
105.72 ± 14.06 |
4.3 |
0.48 |
- 6.86 |
9.98 |
| RPE |
2.16 ± 1.11 |
2.08 ± 1.19 |
0.33 |
0.92 |
- 0.72 |
0.56 |
df = degrees of freedom; † = significant effect at the 0.05 level; M ± SD = mean ± standard deviation; SE = standard error; BL = blood lactate (mmol/L); HR = heart rate (bpm); RPE = rate of perceived exertion; CI = confidence interval.
There was no significant interaction effect of ranking obtained on recovery protocol. However, we found significant differences between recovery protocols in enhancing BL recovery. In particular, the Tukey HSD post-hoc indicated that the experimental protocol was significantly better at reducing BL levels compared to the coach-prescribed intervention.
